Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines good cause for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court.

This bill would expand the types of cases that may support a finding of good cause to include a felony elder or dependent adult abuse violation where the victim is a cognitively impaired adult, as specified. The bill would define cognitively impaired adult for these purposes.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1050 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1656 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1656 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines good cause for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court.

This bill would expand the types of cases that may support a finding of good cause to include a felony elder or dependent adult abuse violation where the victim is a cognitively impaired adult, as specified. The bill would define cognitively impaired adult for these purposes.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1050 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1656 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1656 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines good cause for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court.

This bill would expand the types of cases that may support a finding of good cause to include a felony of elder or dependent adult abuse violation where the victim is a cognitively impaired adult, as specified. The bill would define cognitively impaired adult for these purposes.

Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines good cause for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court.

This bill would expand the list types of cases that may support a finding of good cause to specifically include cases a felony of elder or dependent adult abuse, as specified. abuse violation where the victim is a cognitively impaired adult, as specified. The bill would define cognitively impaired adult for these purposes.

Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines good cause for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court.

This bill would expand the list of cases that may support a finding of good cause to specifically include cases where a minor is detained as a material witness or is the victim of the alleged offense, and cases where the victim is 65 years of age or older at the time of the alleged offense or is a dependent adult. of elder or dependent adult abuse, as specified.

Existing law establishes the requirements for a continuance to be granted in a criminal case, including a showing of good cause. Existing law defines good cause for this purpose to include, but not be limited to, cases involving specified crimes, including murder and domestic violence, and to apply when the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court.

This bill would expand the list of cases that may support a finding of good cause to specifically include cases where a minor is detained as a material witness or is the victim of the alleged offense, and cases where the victim is 65 years of age or older at the time of the alleged offense or is a dependent adult.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2052

Author:(Stefani)

As Amended Ver:August 4, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for purposes of granting a prosecutor′s request for continuance beyond a defendant′s statutory speedy trial right to include any case involving a felony committed against a cognitively impaired adult, as specified, and specifies that the prosecutor may only receive such a good cause continuance once per case.

Senate Amendments

1. Limit a good cause continuance to any felony violation of dependent adult abuse where the victim of the alleged offense is a cognitively impaired adult.
2. Define ″cognitively impaired adult″ as having the same meaning as an existing provision in the Welfare & Institutions Code.
3. Double joins this bill with AB 1656 (Davies) of the current legislative session in order to avoid chaptering issues.

COMMENTS

As Passed by the Assembly: This bill expanded the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for purposes of granting a prosecutor′s request for continuance beyond a defendant′s statutory speedy trial right to include any case pertaining to elder or dependent adult abuse and specifies that the prosecutor may only receive such a good cause continuance once per case.

According to the Author

″AB 2052 strengthens California′s response to crimes against children, older adults, and adults with developmental or cognitive disabilities by ensuring greater continuity in prosecution for these vulnerable victims. Too often, cases involving vulnerable victims are handed from one prosecutor to another, forcing victims and their caregivers to repeatedly relive traumatic experiences while navigating an already difficult justice system without consistent support. AB 2052 allows prosecutors to use vertical prosecution, meaning the same attorney can handle a case from beginning to end, so prosecutors can develop the expertise and sensitivity needed to work effectively with vulnerable victims and build the trust necessary for children and older adults, particularly those with cognitive impairments, to fully participate in the justice process. It also provides victims and their caregivers with a single, consistent point of contact as they navigate complex court proceedings. As California′s population ages and crimes against older adults, including abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation, continue to rise, it is critical that our justice system is equipped to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. AB 2052 helps ensure prosecutors have the tools to deliver justice for those who need our protection most.″

Arguments in Support

According to the California District Attorneys Association, ″Currently, the law limits vertical prosecution to cases involving charges of homicide, sexual assault, and domestic violence, among others. And even though prosecutions with a vulnerable victim who is either a minor, dependent adult, or older adult are just as complex, the law does not recognize or allow for vertical prosecution.

″AB 2052 remedies this shortfall and allows one prosecutor to handle the case from arraignment to trial. Through vertical prosecution, prosecutors can hone their skills and better serve the most vulnerable in our community. ″

Arguments in Opposition

According to the San Francisco Public Defender′s Office, ″AB 2052 would expand the list of crimes primarily murder and domestic violence that may support a finding of good cause to continue a case overriding the defendant′s right to a speedy trial to cases where a minor is detained as a material witness, and any crime where an alleged victim is a minor, greater than sixty-five years of age, or a dependent adult as defined by Penal Code Section 368, subdivision. (h).

″In other words, if a prosecutor was in trial on a case expected to last two months and the defendant was in jail awaiting trial on a misdemeanor petty theft of a cell phone from a minor, the defendant′s trial would be postponed two months until the prosecutor finished the first case. Additionally, AB 2052 would lead to unnecessarily prolonged incarceration for minors who are detained as material witnesses, and will cause more jail overcrowding, more expense to taxpayers, more court congestion, and more individuals being detained pretrial. ″

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0-10

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Elhawary, Hart, Kalra, McKinnor, Celeste Rodriguez, Wicks

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

UPDATED

VERSION: August 4, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003741

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2052

Author:(Stefani)

As Amended Ver:August 4, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for purposes of granting a prosecutor′s request for continuance beyond a defendant′s statutory speedy trial right to include any case involving a felony committed against a cognitively impaired adult, as specified, and specifies that the prosecutor may only receive such a good cause continuance once per case.

Senate Amendments

1. Limit a good cause continuance to any felony violation of dependent adult abuse where the victim of the alleged offense is a cognitively impaired adult.
2. Define ″cognitively impaired adult″ as having the same meaning as an existing provision in the Welfare & Institutions Code.
3. Double joins this bill with AB 1656 (Davies) of the current legislative session in order to avoid chaptering issues.

COMMENTS

As Passed by the Assembly: This bill expanded the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for purposes of granting a prosecutor′s request for continuance beyond a defendant′s statutory speedy trial right to include any case pertaining to elder or dependent adult abuse and specifies that the prosecutor may only receive such a good cause continuance once per case.

According to the Author

″AB 2052 strengthens California′s response to crimes against children, older adults, and adults with developmental or cognitive disabilities by ensuring greater continuity in prosecution for these vulnerable victims. Too often, cases involving vulnerable victims are handed from one prosecutor to another, forcing victims and their caregivers to repeatedly relive traumatic experiences while navigating an already difficult justice system without consistent support. AB 2052 allows prosecutors to use vertical prosecution, meaning the same attorney can handle a case from beginning to end, so prosecutors can develop the expertise and sensitivity needed to work effectively with vulnerable victims and build the trust necessary for children and older adults, particularly those with cognitive impairments, to fully participate in the justice process. It also provides victims and their caregivers with a single, consistent point of contact as they navigate complex court proceedings. As California′s population ages and crimes against older adults, including abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation, continue to rise, it is critical that our justice system is equipped to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. AB 2052 helps ensure prosecutors have the tools to deliver justice for those who need our protection most.″

Arguments in Support

According to the California District Attorneys Association, ″Currently, the law limits vertical prosecution to cases involving charges of homicide, sexual assault, and domestic violence, among others. And even though prosecutions with a vulnerable victim who is either a minor, dependent adult, or older adult are just as complex, the law does not recognize or allow for vertical prosecution.

″AB 2052 remedies this shortfall and allows one prosecutor to handle the case from arraignment to trial. Through vertical prosecution, prosecutors can hone their skills and better serve the most vulnerable in our community. ″

Arguments in Opposition

According to the San Francisco Public Defender′s Office, ″AB 2052 would expand the list of crimes primarily murder and domestic violence that may support a finding of good cause to continue a case overriding the defendant′s right to a speedy trial to cases where a minor is detained as a material witness, and any crime where an alleged victim is a minor, greater than sixty-five years of age, or a dependent adult as defined by Penal Code Section 368, subdivision. (h).

″In other words, if a prosecutor was in trial on a case expected to last two months and the defendant was in jail awaiting trial on a misdemeanor petty theft of a cell phone from a minor, the defendant′s trial would be postponed two months until the prosecutor finished the first case. Additionally, AB 2052 would lead to unnecessarily prolonged incarceration for minors who are detained as material witnesses, and will cause more jail overcrowding, more expense to taxpayers, more court congestion, and more individuals being detained pretrial. ″

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0-10

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Elhawary, Hart, Kalra, McKinnor, Celeste Rodriguez, Wicks

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

UPDATED

VERSION: June 11, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003741

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2052

Author: Stefani (D)

Amended: 8/4/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/9/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 4/23/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Criminal procedure: continuances

SOURCE: Alzheimer’s Association

DIGEST:

This bill expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for the purpose of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include a felony case of elder or dependent adult abuse, if the victim is cognitively impaired.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/3/26 are chaptering amendments that incorporate changes from AB 1656, which requires a court, in determining whether good cause for a continuance exists for cases of human trafficking, to give great weight to the fact that the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States that a person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which their person or health is endangered, is guilty of a wobbler punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed $6,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. (Penal [Pen.] Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1).)
2. Requires that a person who commits the above offense and causes great bodily injury must receive a sentence enhancement of three years if the victim is less than 70 years old and five years if the victim is 70 years old or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(2).)
3. Requires that a person who commits the above offense and causes death must receive a sentence enhancement of five years if the victim is less than 70 years old and seven years if the victim is 70 years old or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(3).)
4. States that a person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which their person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. States that a second or subsequent violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (c).)
5. For the purposes of the above provisions, defines “elder” to mean a person who is 65 years of age or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (g).)
6. For the purposes of the above provisions, defines “dependent adult” to mean a person, regardless of whether the person lives independently, who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or to protect their rights, including but not limited to persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. States that “dependent adult” includes a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (h).)
7. Requires that a court order a criminal case to be dismissed in the following cases, unless good cause to the contrary is shown:
   • When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against the person within 15 days.
   • In a felony case, when a defendant is not brought to trial within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment, indictment or information, reinstatement of criminal proceedings after a declaration of doubt of the defendant’s mental competency, or if a case is to be retried following a mistrial or an order granting a new trial, as specified.
   • When a defendant in a misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30 days after being arraigned or entering their plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody, or within 45 days if the defendant is out of custody. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(1)-(3).)
8. Mandates that continuances be granted only upon a showing of good cause. States that neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (d).)
9. Requires that when deciding whether or not good cause for a continuance has been shown, the court must consider the general convenience and prior commitments of all witnesses, including peace officers. Requires that both the general convenience and prior commitments of each witness also be considered in selecting a continuance date if the motion is granted. Allows that the facts as to inconvenience or prior commitments may be offered by the witness or by a party to the case. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(1).)
10. Defines “good cause” to include, but is not limited to, those cases where the charge is murder, child abuse, stalking related to a specified sex offense, domestic violence, a case being handled in the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, or a hate crime, and where the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. A continuance under this provision shall be limited to a maximum of 10 additional court days. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).)
11. Authorizes that only one continuance per case may be granted to the prosecutor for cases involving stalking, hate crimes, or cases handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program. States that any continuance granted to the people in a case involving stalking or handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program shall be for the shortest time possible, not to exceed 10 court days. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(3).)
12. Requires that in order to continue any hearing in a criminal proceeding, including the trial, a written notice shall be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding at least two court days before the hearing sought to be continued, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (b)(1).)
13. Requires that a superior court, in scheduling a trial date at an arraignment involving murder, sexual assault, child abuse, a case under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, or a case against a person with a developmental disability, make reasonable efforts to avoid setting that trial, when that case is assigned to a particular prosecuting attorney, on the same day that another case is set for trial involving the same prosecuting attorney. (Pen. Code, § 1048.1, subd. (a).)

This bill expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for the purpose of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include a felony case of elder or dependent adult abuse, if the victim is cognitively impaired.

Background

Generally, the U.S. and State Constitutions and California state law provide for the right to a speedy trial. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15; Pen. Code, § 1382.) The right to a speedy trial is “an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.” (United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S. 116, 120.)

In California, a felony case must be brought to trial within 60 days of arraignment or indictment, whichever occurs later. A misdemeanor case must be brought to trial within 30 days of arraignment or plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody. If the defendant is out of custody for a misdemeanor, the case must be brought to trial within 45 days. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(1)-(3).) Where a case is not brought to trial within the statutory speedy trial deadline, the court must grant dismissal, unless the defendant has entered a general time waiver, the defendant has consented to the extension, or good cause is shown. (Ibid.)

A court may only issue a continuance beyond the statutory periods for a maximum of 10 days and only for good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (d).) Several factors are relevant in determining good cause: (a) the nature and strength of the justification for the delay; (b) the duration of the delay; and (c) the prejudice to either the defendant or the prosecution that is likely to result from the delay. In making its good-cause determination, a trial court must consider all the relevant circumstances of the particular case, applying principles of common sense to the totality of the circumstances. Good cause exists, for example, when the delay beyond the statutory period is caused by the conduct of the defendant or occurs for his or her benefit, or there are unforeseen circumstances such as unexpected illness, unanticipated unavailability of counsel, or the absence of a witness despite due diligence to secure his or her attendance.

Over time the Legislature has added additional exceptions to the general rule that criminal trials must occur at the “earliest possible time.” A court is required to find “good cause” in cases of homicide, stalking, child abuse, specified sex offenses, domestic violence, hate crimes, or cases being handled by the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, where the prosecuting attorney has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress that conflicts with the case. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).) Such continuances are limited to a maximum of 10 additional court days. (Ibid.)

This bill expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for the purpose of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include a felony case of elder or dependent adult abuse, if the victim is cognitively impaired. For purposes of this bill, “cognitive impairment” means significant destruction of brain tissue with resultant loss of brain function. Examples of causes of the impairments include dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke or aneurysm, degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and multiple sclerosis, or traumatic brain injury.

The sponsors and author submit that good cause continuances are necessary to facilitate vertical prosecution, which is a model where one attorney handles all stages of a case from beginning to end, rather than substituting counsel at different stages as needed. Vertical prosecution, they argue, allows prosecutors to build trust and expertise working with vulnerable victim witnesses, such as elders and dependent adults, who may be cognitively impaired.

Notably, other vertical prosecution programs have been implemented without requiring good cause continuances. Specifically, in 2023, a grant program was established via the budget act to award $24,868,293 in grant funds to 13 district attorney offices to implement a vertical prosecution program on the issue of retail theft. These offices have implemented vertical prosecution models for a category of offense—retail theft—where there is no requirement for good cause continuances.

Furthermore, good cause continuances cause defendants in custody to face longer periods of pretrial detention, even if they are not guilty of the underlying offense. Pretrial detention can harm someone’s employment, housing, mental health, and family stability. Additionally, the longer people are forced to remain in pretrial detention, the more likely they are to take a plea agreement, even if they are not guilty. Extended periods of pretrial detention impose significant costs on counties. And even short periods of detention can make people more likely to become involved with the criminal justice system in the future.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/3/26)

Alzheimer's Association (source)
Alzheimer's Greater Los Angeles
Alzheimer's Orange County
Alzheimer's San Diego
Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
California Association of School Police Chiefs
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/3/26)

ACLU California Action
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Initiate Justice
Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union, Local 148
San Francisco Public Defender

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 4/23/26

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Elhawary, Hart, Kalra, McKinnor, Celeste Rodriguez, Wicks

Prepared by: Marshal Lawler / PUB. S. /

8/5/26 16:20:46

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2052

Author: Stefani (D)

Amended: 4/16/26 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/9/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 4/23/26 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Criminal procedure: continuances

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for the purpose of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include a felony case of elder or dependent adult abuse, if the victim is cognitively impaired.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. States that a person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which their person or health is endangered, is guilty of a wobbler punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed $6,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. (Penal (Pen.) Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1).)
2. Requires that a person who commits the above offense and causes great bodily injury must receive a sentence enhancement of three years if the victim is less than 70 years old and five years if the victim is 70 years old or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(2).)
3. Requires that a person who commits the above offense and causes death must receive a sentence enhancement of five years if the victim is less than 70 years old and seven years if the victim is 70 years old or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(3).)
4. States that a person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which their person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. States that a second or subsequent violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (c).)
5. Defines, for the purposes of the above provisions, the term “elder” to mean a person who is 65 years of age or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (g).)
6. Defines, for the purposes of the above provisions, the term “dependent adult” to mean a person, regardless of whether the person lives independently, who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or to protect their rights, including but not limited to persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. States that “dependent adult” includes a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (h).)
7. Requires that a court order a criminal case to be dismissed in the following cases, unless good cause to the contrary is shown:
8. When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against the person within 15 days.
9. In a felony case, when a defendant is not brought to trial within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment, indictment or information, reinstatement of criminal proceedings after a declaration of doubt of the defendant’s mental competency, or if a case is to be retried following a mistrial or an order granting a new trial, as specified.
10. When a defendant in a misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30 days after being arraigned or entering their plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody, or within 45 days if the defendant is out of custody. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(1)-(3).)
11. Mandates that continuances be granted only upon a showing of good cause. States that neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (d).)
12. Requires that when deciding whether or not good cause for a continuance has been shown, the court must consider the general convenience and prior commitments of all witnesses, including peace officers. Requires that both the general convenience and prior commitments of each witness also be considered in selecting a continuance date if the motion is granted. Allows that the facts as to inconvenience or prior commitments may be offered by the witness or by a party to the case. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(1).)
13. Defines “good cause” to include, but is not limited to, those cases where the charge is murder, child abuse, stalking related to a specified sex offense, domestic violence, a case being handled in the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, or a hate crime, and where the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. A continuance under this provision shall be limited to a maximum of 10 additional court days. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).)
14. Authorizes that only one continuance per case may be granted to the prosecutor for cases involving stalking, hate crimes, or cases handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program. States that any continuance granted to the people in a case involving stalking or handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program shall be for the shortest time possible, not to exceed 10 court days. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(3).)
15. Requires that in order to continue any hearing in a criminal proceeding, including the trial, a written notice shall be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding at least two court days before the hearing sought to be continued, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (b)(1).)
16. Requires that a superior court, in scheduling a trial date at an arraignment involving murder, sexual assault, child abuse, a case under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, or a case against a person with a developmental disability, make reasonable efforts to avoid setting that trial, when that case is assigned to a particular prosecuting attorney, on the same day that another case is set for trial involving the same prosecuting attorney. (Pen. Code, § 1048.1, subd. (a).)

This bill expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for the purpose of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include a felony case of elder or dependent adult abuse, if the victim is cognitively impaired.

Background

Generally, the U.S. and State Constitutions and California state law provide for the right to a speedy trial. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15; Pen. Code, § 1382.) The right to a speedy trial is “an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.” (United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S. 116, 120.)

In California, a felony case must be brought to trial within 60 days of arraignment or indictment, whichever occurs later. A misdemeanor case must be brought to trial within 30 days of arraignment or plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody. If the defendant is out of custody for a misdemeanor, the case must be brought to trial within 45 days. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(1)-(3).) Where a case is not brought to trial within the statutory speedy trial deadline, the court must grant dismissal, unless the defendant has entered a general time waiver, the defendant has consented to the extension, or good cause is shown. (Ibid.)

A court may only issue a continuance beyond the statutory periods for a maximum of 10 days and only for good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (d).) Several factors are relevant in determining good cause: (a) the nature and strength of the justification for the delay; (b) the duration of the delay; and (c) the prejudice to either the defendant or the prosecution that is likely to result from the delay. In making its good-cause determination, a trial court must consider all the relevant circumstances of the particular case, applying principles of common sense to the totality of the circumstances. Good cause exists, for example, when the delay beyond the statutory period is caused by the conduct of the defendant or occurs for his or her benefit, or there are unforeseen circumstances such as unexpected illness, unanticipated unavailability of counsel, or the absence of a witness despite due diligence to secure his or her attendance.

Over time the Legislature has added additional exceptions to the general rule that criminal trials must occur at the “earliest possible time.” A court is required to find “good cause” in cases of homicide, stalking, child abuse, specified sex offenses, domestic violence, hate crimes, or cases being handled by the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, where the prosecuting attorney has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress that conflicts with the case. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).) Such continuances are limited to a maximum of 10 additional court days. (Ibid.)

This bill expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for the purpose of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include a felony case of elder or dependent adult abuse, if the victim is cognitively impaired. For purposes of this bill, “cognitive impairment” means significant destruction of brain tissue with resultant loss of brain function. Examples of causes of the impairments include dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, cerebrovascular diseases such as stroke or aneurysm, degenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, and multiple sclerosis, or traumatic brain injury.

The sponsors and author submit that good cause continuances are necessary to facilitate vertical prosecution, which is a model where one attorney handles all stages of a case from beginning to end, rather than substituting counsel at different stages as needed. Vertical prosecution, they argue, allows prosecutors to build trust and expertise working with vulnerable victim witnesses, such as elders and dependent adults, who may be cognitively impaired.

Notably, other vertical prosecution programs have been implemented without requiring good cause continuances. This suggests mandatory good cause continuances are not necessary to implement vertical prosecution models. Specifically, in 2023, a grant program was established via the budget act to award $24,868,293 in grant funds to 13 district attorney offices to implement a vertical prosecution program on the issue of retail theft. (Board of State and Community Corrections, ORT Vertical Prosecution Q4 Summary (Dec. 17, 2024) <https://www.bscc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ORT-Vertical-Prosecution-Q4-Summary-12.17.2024-.pdf .) These offices have implemented vertical prosecution models for a category of offense—retail theft—where there is no requirement for good cause continuances.

Furthermore, good cause continuances cause defendants in custody to face longer periods of pretrial detention, even if they are not guilty of the underlying offense. Pretrial detention can harm someone’s employment, housing, mental health, and family stability. (Dobbie et al., The Effects of Pretrial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges (2018) 108 Am. Econ. Rev. 201 <https://perma.cc/7NAN-S7HB .) Additionally, the longer people are forced to remain in pretrial detention, the more likely they are to take a plea agreement, even if they are not guilty. (Ibid.) Extended periods of pretrial detention impose significant costs on counties. And even short periods of detention can make people more likely to become involved with the criminal justice system in the future.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/11/26)

Alzheimer's Association
Alzheimer's Greater Los Angeles
Alzheimer's Orange County
Alzheimer's San Diego
Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
California Association of School Police Chiefs
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/11/26)

ACLU California Action
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Initiate Justice
Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union, Local 148
San Francisco Public Defender

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 70-0, 4/23/26

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Bonta, Bryan, Caloza, Elhawary, Hart, Kalra, McKinnor, Celeste Rodriguez, Wicks

Prepared by: Marshal Lawler / PUB. S. /

6/12/26 12:50:05

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 2052 Hearing Date: June 9, 2026

Subject: Criminal procedure: continuances

HISTORY

Source: Alzheimer’s Association

Prior Legislation: AB 577 (Muratsuchi), Ch. 853, Stats. of 2022

AB 959 (Melendez), held in Assembly Appropriations, 2019

AB 2124 (Rubio), held in Senate Appropriations, 2018

AB 2359 (Maienschein), held in Assembly Appropriations, 2018

AB 229 (Baker), held in Senate Appropriations, 2017

AB 2202 (Baker), held in Senate Appropriations, 2016

AB 2653 (Chu), Ch. 788, Stats. of 2002

SB 69 (Murray), Ch. 580, Stats. of 1999

AB 501 (Nakanishi), Ch. 382, Stats. of 1999

SB 215 (Alpert), Ch. 69, Stats. of 1997

Support: Alzheimer's Association; Arcadia Police Officers’ Association; Brea Police Association; Burbank Police Officers’ Association; California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform; California Association of School Police Chiefs; California Coalition of School Safety Professionals; California Narcotic Officers’ Association; California Police Chiefs Association; California Reserve Peace Officers Association; California State Sheriffs’ Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers’ Association; Fullerton Police Officers’ Association; Los Angeles School Police Management Association; Los Angeles School Police Officers Association; Murrieta Police Officers’ Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Placer County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association; Pomona Police Officers’ Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration

Opposition: ACLU California Action; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; Californians United for a Responsible Budget; Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union, Local 148; San Francisco Public Defender

Assembly Floor Vote: 70 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to expand the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for the purpose of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include any case pertaining to elder or dependent adult abuse.

Existing law states that a person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which their person or health is endangered, is guilty of a wobbler punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed $6,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1).)

Existing law requires that a person who commits the above offense and causes great bodily injury must receive a sentence enhancement of three years if the victim is less than 70 years old and five years if the victim is 70 years old or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(2).)

Existing law requires that a person who commits the above offense and causes death must receive a sentence enhancement of five years if the victim is less than 70 years old and seven years if the victim is 70 years old or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(3).)

Existing law states that a person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which their person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor. States that a second or subsequent violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (c).)

Existing law, for the purposes of the above provisions, defines “elder” to mean a person who is 65 years of age or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (g).)

Existing law, for the purposes of the above provisions, defines “dependent adult” to mean a person, regardless of whether the person lives independently, who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or to protect their rights, including but not limited to persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. States that “dependent adult” includes a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (h).)

Existing law requires that a court order a criminal case to be dismissed in the following cases, unless good cause to the contrary is shown:

• • When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against the person within 15 days.
    
  • In a felony case, when a defendant is not brought to trial within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment, indictment or information, reinstatement of criminal proceedings after a declaration of doubt of the defendant’s mental competency, or if a case is to be retried following a mistrial or an order granting a new trial, as specified.
    
  • When a defendant in a misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30 days after being arraigned or entering their plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody, or within 45 days if the defendant is out of custody. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(1)-(3).)

Existing law states that a felony case will not be dismissed if the defendant enters a general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement or if the defendant requests or consents to the setting of trial beyond the 60-day period. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(2)(A)-(B).)

Existing law states that a misdemeanor or infraction will not be dismissed if the defendant enters a general time waiver of the 30-day or 45-day trial requirement, the defendant requests or consents to the setting of the trial beyond the 30-day or 45-day period, or the defendant fails to appear at a hearing prior to trial and a bench warrant has been issued. States that if such a bench warrant is issued, then the defendant will be deemed to have been arraigned on the date of their subsequent arraignment on their bench warrant. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(3)(A)-(C).)

Existing law mandates that continuances be granted only upon a showing of good cause. States that neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (d).)

Existing law requires that when deciding whether or not good cause for a continuance has been shown, the court must consider the general convenience and prior commitments of all witnesses, including peace officers. Requires that both the general convenience and prior commitments of each witness also be considered in selecting a continuance date if the motion is granted. Allows that the facts as to inconvenience or prior commitments may be offered by the witness or by a party to the case. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(1).)

Existing law defines “good cause” to include, but is not limited to, those cases where the charge is murder, child abuse, stalking related to a specified sex offense, domestic violence, a case being handled in the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, or a hate crime, and where the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. A continuance under this provision shall be limited to a maximum of 10 additional court days. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).)

Existing law authorizes that only one continuance per case may be granted to the prosecutor for cases involving stalking, hate crimes, or cases handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution

Program. States that any continuance granted to the people in a case involving stalking or handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program shall be for the shortest time possible, not to exceed 10 court days. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(3).)

Existing law requires that in order to continue any hearing in a criminal proceeding, including the trial, a written notice shall be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding at least two court days before the hearing sought to be continued, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (b)(1).)

Existing law requires that within two court days of learning that a person has a conflict in the scheduling of any court hearing, including a trial, an attorney must notify the calendar clerk of each court involved, in writing, indicating which hearing was set first. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (b)(2).)

Existing law requires that a superior court, in scheduling a trial date at an arraignment involving murder, sexual assault, child abuse, a case under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, or a case against a person with a development disability, make reasonable efforts to avoid setting that trial, when that case is assigned to a particular prosecuting attorney, on the same day that another case is set for trial involving the same prosecuting attorney. (Pen. Code, § 1048.1, subd. (a).)

This bill expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for purposes of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include any case pertaining to elder or dependent adult abuse. Allows only one continuance per case under this provision.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

The author writes:

AB 2052 strengthens California’s response to crimes against older adults and adults with developmental or cognitive disabilities by ensuring greater continuity in prosecution for these vulnerable victims. Too often, cases involving vulnerable victims are handed from one prosecutor to another, forcing victims and their caregivers to repeatedly relive traumatic experiences while navigating an already difficult justice system without consistent support. AB 2052 allows prosecutors to use vertical prosecution, meaning the same attorney can handle a case from beginning to end, so prosecutors can build trust and develop the expertise necessary to work effectively with individuals with cognitive impairments. It also provides victims and their caregivers with a single, consistent point of contact as they navigate complex court proceedings. As California’s population ages and crimes against older adults, including abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation, continue to rise, it is critical that our justice system is equipped to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. AB 2052 helps ensure prosecutors have the tools to deliver justice for those who need our protection most.

1. Existing Law Governing Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse

Existing law states that a person who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or dependent adult and who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any elder or dependent adult to suffer, or inflicts unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any elder or dependent adult, willfully causes or permits the person or health of the elder or dependent adult to be injured, or willfully causes or permits the elder or dependent adult to be placed in a situation in which their person or health is endangered, is guilty of a wobbler punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed $6,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1).)

A person who commits the above offense and causes great bodily injury must receive a sentence enhancement of three years if the victim is less than 70 years old and five years if the victim is 70 years old or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(2).) A person who commits the above offense and causes death must receive a sentence enhancement of five years if the victim is less than 70 years old and seven years if the victim is 70 years old or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(3).)

A person who commits this crime under circumstances not likely to produce great bodily harm or death is guilty of a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (c).)

For the purposes of the above provisions, “elder” means a person who is 65 years of age or older. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (g).) “Dependent adult” means a person, regardless of whether the person lives independently, who is between the ages of 18 and 64, who has physical or mental limitations which restrict their ability to carry out normal activities or to protect their rights, including but not limited to persons who have physical or developmental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities have diminished because of age. “Dependent adult” includes a person between the ages of 18 and 64 who is admitted as an inpatient to a 24-hour health facility, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (h).)

1. Existing Law Governing Speedy Trial Rights

Generally, the U.S. and State Constitutions and California state law provide for the right to a speedy trial. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15; Pen. Code, § 1382.) The right to a speedy trial is “an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.” (United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S. 116, 120.)

In California, a felony case must be brought to trial within 60 days of arraignment or indictment, whichever occurs later. A misdemeanor case must be brought to trial within 30 days of arraignment or plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody. If the defendant is out of custody for a misdemeanor, the case must be brought to trial within 45 days. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(1)-(3).) Where a case is not brought to trial within the statutory speedy trial deadline, the court must grant dismissal, unless the defendant has entered a general time waiver, the defendant has consented to the extension, or good cause is shown. (Ibid; Baustert v. Superior Court (People) (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1275.)

The general time waiver entitles the superior court “to set or continue a trial date without the sanction of dismissal should the case fail to proceed on the date set for trial." (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(2)(A), (a)(3)(A).) If the defendant, after proper notice to all parties, withdraws the waiver in the superior court, the defendant must be brought to trial within 60 days of the date of that withdrawal for felony cases and within 30 days for misdemeanor cases. (Ibid.) If the defendant requests or consents to a trial date beyond the statutory deadline, the defendant must be brought to trial on the agreed-upon date or within 10 calendar days thereafter. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subds. (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)(B).)

A court may only issue a continuance beyond the statutory periods for a maximum of 10 days and only for good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (d).) Several factors are relevant in determining good cause: (a) the nature and strength of the justification for the delay; (b) the duration of the delay; and (c) the prejudice to either the defendant or the prosecution that is likely to result from the delay. In making its good-cause determination, a trial court must consider all the relevant circumstances of the particular case, applying principles of common sense to the totality of the circumstances. (People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1131, 1163.) Good cause exists, for example, when the delay beyond the statutory period is caused by the conduct of the defendant or occurs for his or her benefit, or there are unforeseen circumstances such as unexpected illness, unanticipated unavailability of counsel, or the absence of a witness despite due diligence to secure his or her attendance. (People v. Hajjaj (2010) 50 Cal. 4^th 1184, 1198.) However, delay attributable to court congestion or improper court administration does not constitute good cause. (Engram, supra, at p. 1163); see Stroud v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 952, 969.) Neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is, in and of itself, good cause. (See Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (e).)

The introduction to Penal Code section 1050, enacted in 1959, states the intent of the Legislature as related to good cause continuances, as follows:

The welfare of the people of the State of California requires that all proceedings in criminal cases shall be set for trial and heard and determined at the earliest possible time. To this end, the Legislature finds that the criminal courts are becoming increasingly congested with resulting adverse consequences to the welfare of the people and the defendant. Excessive continuances contribute substantially to this congestion and cause substantial hardship to victims and other witnesses. Continuances also lead to longer periods of presentence confinement for those defendants in custody and the concomitant overcrowding and increased expenses of local jails. It is therefore recognized that the people, the defendant, and the victims and other witnesses have the right to an expeditious disposition, and to that end it shall be the duty of all courts and judicial officers and of all counsel, both for the prosecution and the defense, to expedite these proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (a).)

Over time the Legislature has added additional exceptions to the general rule that criminal trials must occur at the “earliest possible time.” Specifically, the convenience of witnesses, including peace officers, may constitute good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(1).) A court is required to find good cause in cases of homicide, stalking, child abuse, specific sex offenses, domestic violence, hate crimes, or cases being handled by the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, where the prosecuting attorney has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress that conflicts with the case. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).) Such continuances are limited to a maximum of 10 additional court days. (Ibid.)

Additionally, in determining “good cause,” the court will consider whether the party seeking a continuance demonstrated it has prepared for the hearing or trial with due diligence. If the party is seeking a continuance to secure a witness’s testimony, the party must show that they exercised due diligence to secure the witness’s attendance, that the witness would be available to testify within a reasonable time, and that the testimony was material and not cumulative. (People v. Johnson (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 938, 942.)

There is, further, a provision of existing law that requires that a superior court, in scheduling a trial date at an arraignment involving murder, sexual assault, child abuse, a case under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, or a case against a person with a development disability, to make reasonable efforts to avoid setting that trial on the same day that another case is set for trial involving the same prosecuting attorney. (Pen. Code, § 1048.1, subd. (a).)

1. Effect of This Bill

This bill would expand the list of crimes for which a judge must find good cause for a continuance to include the offense of elder and dependent adult abuse, as defined.

The sponsors and author submit that good cause continuances are necessary to facilitate vertical prosecution, which is a model where one attorney handles all stages of a case from beginning to end, rather than substituting counsel at different stages as needed. Vertical prosecution, they argue, allows prosecutors to build trust and expertise working with vulnerable victim witnesses, such as elders and dependent adults, who may be cognitively impaired.

This bill raises several questions.

• 1. Nexus Between Vertical Prosecution and Speedy Trial Rights

Other vertical prosecution programs have been implemented without requiring good cause continuances. This suggests mandatory good cause continuances are not necessary to implement vertical prosecution models. Specifically, in 2023, a grant program was established via the budget act to award $24,868,293 in grant funds to 13 district attorney offices to implement a vertical prosecution program on the issue of retail theft. (Board of State and Community Corrections, ORT Vertical Prosecution Q4 Summary (Dec. 17, 2024) <ORT-Vertical-Prosecution-Q4-Summary-12.17.2024-.pdf>.) These offices have implemented vertical prosecution models for a category of offense—retail theft—where there is no requirement for good cause continuances. Further, there is no provision in existing law that prevents district attorney offices from implementing a vertical prosecution model in elder and dependent adult abuse cases. In short, the connection between vertical prosecution and good cause continuances is arguably tenuous.

• 1. This Bill May Target a Budget Issue

This bill comes after repeated attempts to fund vertical prosecution programs have failed. If prosecutorial offices lack the resources to implement vertical prosecution, the best solution may not be to suspend defendant’s right to a speedy trial, which will likely increase court congestion and backlog, as per the introduction to Penal Code Section 1050. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (a).) Rather, the solution to this issue may be to sufficiently fund vertical prosecution programs.

The Committee may consider whether vertical prosecution programs would more appropriately be pursued through the budget process, rather than policy bills such as this one.

• 1. Judicial Discretion

Judges already have discretion to grant good cause continuances depending on the facts of individual cases, such as the disability of a defendant and severity or complexity of the case. Under existing law, if a particular case requires that a prosecuting attorney be the sole attorney for the case to better support a vulnerable victim witness, then a court can make that determination and grant a continuance. This legislation would eliminate a judge’s discretion and require the court to grant the continuance, regardless of the facts of the case.

While continuity may often be desirable, there are likely cases in which the need for continuity does not outweigh the defendant’s right to speedy trial. Judges are best positioned to make that determination. Thus, the Committee and author may consider amendments to make it discretionary to find good cause for continuance in cases of elder and dependent adult abuse, depending on the facts of the case, rather than mandatory.

• 1. Pretrial Detention

Good cause continuances cause defendants in custody to face longer periods of pretrial detention, even if they are not guilty of the underlying offense. Pretrial detention can harm someone’s employment, housing, mental health, and family stability. (Dobbie et al., The Effects of Pretrial Detention on Conviction, Future Crime, and Employment: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Judges (2018) 108 Am. Econ. Rev. 201 <https://perma.cc/7NAN-S7HB>.) Additionally, the longer people are forced to remain in pretrial detention, the more likely they are to take a plea agreement, even if they are not guilty. (Ibid.) Extended periods of pretrial detention impose significant costs on counties. And even short periods of detention can make people more likely to become involved with the criminal justice system in the future. (Lowenkamp, VanNostrand & Holsinger, The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention (2013), p. 4 <https://perma.cc/498S-LM6P>.)

• 1. Overbreadth

This bill would apply to all dependent and elder abuse cases, regardless of whether the district attorney office in question has implemented a vertical prosecution model for those cases. Thus, this legislation is likely overbroad because it would affect cases where prosecutors do not engage in vertical prosecution.

• 1. Prosecution and Defense Parity

Both district attorneys and public defenders handle multiple trials and hearings at one time, yet only district attorneys are permitted good cause continuances for elder and dependent adult abuse cases under this bill. Defense counsel are not granted the same right even though the specialization of specific kinds of cases arguably should apply to both the prosecution and the defense. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 562 [“We conclude that, at least in the case of an incarcerated defendant, the asserted inability of the public defender to try such a defendant's case within the statutory period because of conflicting obligations to other clients does not constitute good cause to avoid dismissal of the charges.”].)

• 1. Future Carve-Outs

As this bill demonstrates, there is a growing push to add additional types of cases for which a court must grant a good cause continuance and thereby delay a defendant’s right to trial. Such carve-outs undermine the original intent of the speedy trial requirements in statute, and they undermine defendants’ constitutional rights. If this trend continues, so many classes of crimes may be included in this carve-out that defendants’ speedy trial rights may be delayed beyond the statutory limit in most criminal cases.

• 1. Separation of Powers Concerns

It is possible that requiring good cause continuances for additional categories of offenses may violate separation of powers because doing so “materially impairs” the ability of courts to manage their dockets.

Courts have an inherent power to manage their own calendars and caseload. (Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254-255.) The California Supreme Court in Brydonjack v. State Bar emphasized that the separation-of-powers doctrine imposes a limitation on the Legislature’s authority to promulgate rules affecting matters that fall within the inherent authority of courts. (Brydonjack v. State Bar (1929) 208 Cal. 439, 442.) It observed that “the Legislature may put reasonable restrictions upon constitutional functions of the courts provided they do not defeat or materially impair the exercise of those functions.” (Id. at p. 444).

As discussed above, the Legislature already regulates the judicial calendar to a certain degree in criminal cases. In particular, the Legislature requires good cause continuances in cases involving certain categories of crimes. The list of offenses in this category was last expanded in 2002, when hate crimes were added to the list. (AB 2653 (Chu), Ch. 788, Stats. of 2002.) In the intervening 24 years, court calendars and caseloads have become increasingly strained. There is a concern that mandating continuances for even more categories of cases, with no regard to the individual facts of each case, “materially impairs” the ability of courts to manage their dockets and thereby violates separation of powers. That concern is particularly present for this bill, because it applies to misdemeanor elder and dependent adult abuse cases, of which there are approximately one thousand each year in California.

At some point, courts may rule that legislation such as this bill unconstitutionally infringes on their inherent powers to manage caseloads. Considering this risk, the Committee and author may wish to more narrowly tailor the legislative mandates on judicial calendaring in this bill.

In light of the concerns outlined above, the Committee may consider adding human trafficking to an existing provision requires that a superior court, in scheduling a trial date at an arraignment, to make reasonable efforts to avoid setting that trial on the same day that another case is set for trial involving the same prosecuting attorney. (Pen. Code, § 1048.1, subd. (a).) The Committee may consider adding elder abuse to this penal code provision, instead of requiring a good cause continuance for these cases. Penal Code section 1048.1 would require a court to consider the prosecutor’s calendar but still maintain judicial discretion to grant continuances depending on the facts of the case, such as whether the victim is disabled, or the severity and complexity of the case.

Alternatively, the Committee may consider limiting the bill to apply only in felony cases where a victim witness has a developmental or cognitive disability. This bill requires good cause continuances for all elder and dependent adult cases, regardless of the facts of the case, under the presumption that such cases are complex or involve victims with disabilities. Yet this bill would apply to misdemeanor cases, as well as cases where the victim witness is not disabled. This amendment would make the bill more narrowly targeted to the problem identified.

1. Argument in Support

The Alzheimer’s Association writes:

This bill provides a prosecuting attorney with good cause to receive a continuance if they have a Penal Code 368 case where a dependent or older adult is the victim of the alleged offense. This legislation supports the pursuit of vertical prosecutions on behalf of vulnerable victims.

Vertical prosecution units and dedicated elder abuse prosecutors provide victim-survivors with the necessary support to navigate a stressful process seeking justice after a destabilizing event occurs. Those living with cognitive impairment are vulnerable to abuse and neglect, especially financial exploitation, while also facing unique challenges advocating for themselves in these settings.

AB 2052 better supports those living with dementia by enhancing care and support in the community: a dedicated prosecutor creates continuity by holding case knowledge and provides caregivers with a resource to coordinate follow up, while building crucial expertise on elder abuse. These cases need special attention to request accommodations that assist those processing trauma.

1. Argument in Opposition

The California Public Defenders Association writes:

AB 2052 as amended applies to both misdemeanors and felonies. It will cause more jail overcrowding, more expense to taxpayers, more court congestion, and more individuals being detained pretrial. In the case of innocent individuals who are charged with misdemeanors they will be faced with additional pressure by prolonged continuances to plead guilty just to get out of jail rather than risk losing their employment and housing.

While we share the author and sponsors concerns about individuals suffering from dementia, AB 2052 would wreck absolute havoc with misdemeanor calendars. As public defenders in large urban counties can attest, misdemeanor calendars frequently hear over 100 cases a day...

AB 2052 adds yet another category of crimes providing prosecutors with a unilateral exception to the requirements of “good cause” within the meaning of Penal Code § 1050. As such, AB 2052 contravenes the core legislative intent of Section 1050. Subdivision (a) of Section 1050 which states that “all proceedings in criminal cases shall be set for trial and heard and determined at the earliest possible time” because “criminal courts are becoming increasingly congested with resulting adverse consequences to the welfare of the people and the defendant” and “[e]xcessive continuances contribute substantially to this congestion and cause substantial hardship to victims and other witnesses . . . [and] lead to longer periods of presentence confinement for those defendants in custody and the concomitant overcrowding and increased expenses of local jails.” An additional class of crimes that fall within the meaning of “good cause” under subdivision (g)(2) of Section 1050 would only cause more delay, more congestion, more hardship, and longer periods of presentence confinement for criminal defendants.

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2052

Author:(Stefani)

As Amended Ver:April 16, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for purposes of granting a prosecutor′s request for continuance beyond a defendant′s statutory speedy trial right to include any case pertaining to elder or dependent adult abuse and specifies that the prosecutor may only receive such a good cause continuance once per case.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

According to the Author

″AB 2052 strengthens California′s response to crimes against children, older adults, and adults with developmental or cognitive disabilities by ensuring greater continuity in prosecution for these vulnerable victims. Too often, cases involving vulnerable victims are handed from one prosecutor to another, forcing victims and their caregivers to repeatedly relive traumatic experiences while navigating an already difficult justice system without consistent support. AB 2052 allows prosecutors to use vertical prosecution, meaning the same attorney can handle a case from beginning to end, so prosecutors can develop the expertise and sensitivity needed to work effectively with vulnerable victims and build the trust necessary for children and older adults, particularly those with cognitive impairments, to fully participate in the justice process. It also provides victims and their caregivers with a single, consistent point of contact as they navigate complex court proceedings. As California′s population ages and crimes against older adults, including abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation, continue to rise, it is critical that our justice system is equipped to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. AB 2052 helps ensure prosecutors have the tools to deliver justice for those who need our protection most.″

Arguments in Support

According to the California District Attorneys Association, ″Currently, the law limits vertical prosecution to cases involving charges of homicide, sexual assault, and domestic violence, among others. And even though prosecutions with a vulnerable victim who is either a minor, dependent adult, or older adult are just as complex, the law does not recognize or allow for vertical prosecution.

″AB 2052 remedies this shortfall and allows one prosecutor to handle the case from arraignment to trial. Through vertical prosecution, prosecutors can hone their skills and better serve the most vulnerable in our community.″

Arguments in Opposition

According to the San Francisco Public Defender′s Office, ″AB 2052 would expand the list of crimes primarily murder and domestic violence that may support a finding of good cause to continue a case overriding the defendant′s right to a speedy trial to cases where a minor is detained as a material witness, and any crime where an alleged victim is a minor, greater than sixty-five years of age, or a dependent adult as defined by Penal Code Section 368, subdivision. (h).

″In other words, if a prosecutor was in trial on a case expected to last two months and the defendant was in jail awaiting trial on a misdemeanor petty theft of a cell phone from a minor, the defendant′s trial would be postponed two months until the prosecutor finished the first case. Additionally, AB 2052 would lead to unnecessarily prolonged incarceration for minors who are detained as material witnesses, and will cause more jail overcrowding, more expense to taxpayers, more court congestion, and more individuals being detained pretrial.″

FISCAL COMMENTS

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 9-0-0

YES: Schultz, Alanis, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: April 16, 2026

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002384

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Expands the list of crimes for which a court must consider good cause for purposes of granting a prosecutor’s request for continuance beyond a defendant’s statutory speedy trial right to include any case pertaining to elder or dependent adult abuse and specifies that the prosecutor may only receive such a good cause continuance once per case.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that in order to continue any hearing in a criminal proceeding, including the trial, a written notice shall be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding at least two court days before the hearing sought to be continued, together with affidavits or declarations detailing specific facts showing that a continuance is necessary. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (b)(1).)
   
2. Requires that within two court days of learning that a person has a conflict in the scheduling of any court hearing, including a trial, an attorney must notify the calendar clerk of each court involved, in writing, indicating which hearing was set first. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (b)(2).)
   
3. Provides that a party shall not be deemed to have been served until that party actually receives a copy of the documents to be served, unless the party, after receiving actual notice of the request for continuance, waives the right to have the documents served in a timely manner. Regardless of the proponent of the motion, the prosecuting attorney must notify the people’s witnesses, and the defense attorney shall notify the defense’s witnesses of the notice of motion, the date of the hearing, and the witnesses’ right to be heard by the court. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (b)(2).)
   
4. Mandates that continuances be granted only upon a showing of good cause. Neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is in and of itself good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (d).)
   
5. Mandates that when deciding whether or not good cause for a continuance has been shown, the court consider the general convenience and prior commitments of all witnesses, including peace officers. Both the general convenience and prior commitments of each witness also shall be considered in selecting a continuance date if the motion is granted. The facts as to inconvenience or prior commitments may be offered by the witness or by a party to the case. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(1).)
   
6. Defines “good cause” to include, but is not limited to, those cases involving murder, stalking related to a specified sex offense, domestic violence, a case being handled in the Career Criminal Prosecution Program, or a hate crime, has occurred and the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has another trial, preliminary hearing, or motion to suppress in progress in that court or another court. A continuance under this paragraph shall be limited to a maximum of 10 additional court days. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).)
   
7. States that only one continuance per case may be granted to the prosecutor for cases involving stalking, hate crimes, or cases handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program. Any continuance granted to the people in a case involving stalking or handled under the Career Criminal Prosecution Program shall be for the shortest time possible, not to exceed 10 court days. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(3).)
   
8. States that the court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the action to be dismissed in the following cases:
   
   1. When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against the person within 15 days.
      
   2. In a felony case, when a defendant is not brought to trial within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment or an indictment or information, or reinstatement of criminal proceedings after a declaration of doubt of defendant’s mental competency, or if a case is to be retried following a mistrial or an order granting a new trial, as specified.
      
   3. When a defendant in a misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30 days after being arraigned or enters their plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody, or within 45 days if the defendant is out of custody. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)
      
9. Provides that a felony case shall not be dismissed if the defendant enters a general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement or if the defendant requests or consents to the setting of trial beyond the 60-day period. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(2)(A)-(B).)
   
10. States that a misdemeanor or infraction shall not be dismissed if the defendant enters a general time waiver of the 30-day or 45-day trial requirement, the defendant requests or consents to the setting of the trial beyond the 30-day or 45-day period, or the defendant fails to appear at a hearing prior to trial and a bench warrant has been issued, then the defendant will be deemed to have been arraigned on the date of their subsequent arraignment on their bench warrant. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(3)(A)-(C).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “AB 2052 strengthens California’s response to crimes against children, older adults, and adults with developmental or cognitive disabilities by ensuring greater continuity in prosecution for these vulnerable victims. Too often, cases involving vulnerable victims are handed from one prosecutor to another, forcing victims and their caregivers to repeatedly relive traumatic experiences while navigating an already difficult justice system without consistent support. AB 2052 allows prosecutors to use vertical prosecution, meaning the same attorney can handle a case from beginning to end, so prosecutors can develop the expertise and sensitivity needed to work effectively with vulnerable victims and build the trust necessary for children and older adults, particularly those with cognitive impairments, to fully participate in the justice process. It also provides victims and their caregivers with a single, consistent point of contact as they navigate complex court proceedings. As California’s population ages and crimes against older adults, including abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation, continue to rise, it is critical that our justice system is equipped to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable. AB 2052 helps ensure prosecutors have the tools to deliver justice for those who need our protection most.”
2. Right to a Speedy Trial: Generally, the U.S. and State Constitutions and California state law provide for the right to a speedy trial. (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 15; Pen. Code, § 1382.) The right to a speedy trial is “an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial, to minimize anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibilities that long delay will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself.” (United States v. Ewell (1966) 383 U.S. 116, 120.)

The speedy trial time frame is stated in Penal Code section 1382 and has been determined to be 60 days for a felony trial and either 30 or 45 days for a misdemeanor trial. (See People v. Shane (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 196, 203.) Failure to bring a case to trial within the statutory speedy trial deadline will result in dismissal, unless defendant has entered a general time waiver or the defendant has consented to the extension, or if good cause is shown. (Baustert v. Superior Court (People) (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1275.)

The general time waiver entitles the superior court “to set or continue a trial date without the sanction of dismissal should the case fail to proceed on the date set for trial." (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(2)(A), (a)(3)(A).) If the defendant, after proper notice to all parties, withdraws the waiver in the superior court, the defendant must be brought to trial within 60 days of the date of that withdrawal. (Ibid.) If the defendant requests or consents to a trial date beyond the statutory deadline, the defendant must be brought to trial on the agreed-upon date or within 10-calendar days thereafter. (Pen. Code, § 1382, subd. (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)(B).)

A continuance beyond the statutory periods without a defendant entering a limited or general time waiver may only be issued by a court for a maximum of 10 days and only for good cause. “Good cause” can be based on witness availability, judge or courtroom availability, illness or emergency, or a specific class of cases. (Mendoza v. Superior Court (People) (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 865, 870.)^[1]

A broad variety of unforeseen events may establish good cause under section 1382. However, delay attributable to court congestion or improper court administration does not constitute good cause. The appellate court reviews the court's good cause determination for abuse of discretion. When the superior court denies a motion to dismiss under section 1382, the defendant may seek pretrial writ review without demonstrating prejudice from the delay of trial. (Id.)

It is settled that, although a broad variety of unforeseen events may establish good cause under section 1382, the unavailability of a number of judges or courtrooms sufficient to handle the court's caseload, due to chronic congestion of the court's docket, does not establish good cause, absent exceptional circumstances. (People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1131,1163; see Stroud v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 952, 969.)

The view we expressed 30 years ago in Johnson, supra, 26 Cal.3d 557, holds true today, as we confirmed in Engram: “‘A defendant's right to a speedy trial may be denied simply by the failure of the state to provide enough courtrooms or judges to enable defendant to come to trial within the statutory period. … ‘[U]nreasonable delay in run-of-the mill criminal cases cannot be justified by simply asserting that the public resources provided by the State's criminal-justice system are limited and that each case must await its turn.’” (Engram, supra, 50 Cal.4th at p. 1163, quoting Johnson, supra, 26 Cal.3d at pp. 571–572; (People v. Hajjaj (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1184, 1198.)

Any legislation that allows the prosecutor to continue a case beyond the statutory and constitutional speedy trial right must be rooted in more than convenience. Continuances in complex cases or in cases where the victim is especially vulnerable have been approved by the courts. (See generally, Barron v. Superior Court (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 628; Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(2).)

1. Good Cause Continuances: Penal Code section 1050 generally requires any party seeking to continue any hearing in a criminal proceeding to demonstrate good cause. Neither the convenience of the parties nor a stipulation of the parties is, in and of itself, good cause. (See Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (e).) Added to the Penal Code in 1959, the introduction to Penal Code section 1050 states the intent of the Legislature, as follows:

The welfare of the people of the State of California requires that all proceedings in criminal cases shall be set for trial and heard and determined at the earliest possible time. To this end, the Legislature finds that the criminal courts are becoming increasingly congested with resulting adverse consequences to the welfare of the people and the defendant. Excessive continuances contribute substantially to this congestion and cause substantial hardship to victims and other witnesses. Continuances also lead to longer periods of presentence confinement for those defendants in custody and the concomitant overcrowding and increased expenses of local jails. It is therefore recognized that the people, the defendant, and the victims and other witnesses have the right to an expeditious disposition, and to that end it shall be the duty of all courts and judicial officers and of all counsel, both for the prosecution and the defense, to expedite these proceedings to the greatest degree that is consistent with the ends of justice. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (a).)

Despite the intent of the 1959 amendment, over time the Legislature has added additional exceptions to the general rule that criminal trials must occur at the “earliest possible time.” Specifically, the convenience of witnesses, including peace officers, may constitute good cause. (Pen. Code, § 1050, subd. (g)(1).) Moreover, Penal Code section 1050, subdivision (g)(2) states certain types of cases necessarily constitute “good cause” including, homicide, stalking, child abuse, specific sex offenses, domestic violence, hate crimes, or cases being handled by the Career Criminal Prosecution Program.

Several factors are relevant in determining good cause: (a) the nature and strength of the justification for the delay; (b) the duration of the delay; and (c) the prejudice to either the defendant or the prosecution that is likely to result from the delay. In making its good-cause determination, a trial court must consider all the relevant circumstances of the particular case, applying principles of common sense to the totality of the circumstances.” (People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1131, 1163.)

Additionally, in determining “good cause,” the court will consider whether the party seeking a continuance demonstrated it has prepared for the hearing or trial with due diligence. If the party is seeking a continuance to secure a witness's testimony, the party must show that they exercised due diligence to secure the witness's attendance, that the witness would be available to testify within a reasonable time, and that the testimony was material and not cumulative. (People v. Johnson (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 938, 942.) If the court grants a good cause continuance, the district attorney may only continue the case for 10 days.

Good cause continuances interfere with a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. As a result, the court must make specified findings on the record to grant a good cause continuance. It usually requires time out of the court’s calendar to hear the party on the merits and may uniquely hamper the defendant’s right to fair trial. This is particularly true given that public defenders are not granted the same right as prosecutors in obtaining good cause continuances.

District attorneys and public defenders handle multiple trials and hearings at one time. Expanding the crimes forming the basis of a good cause continuance means a district attorney may get a continuance of preliminary hearing or trial if they must appear at a proceeding elsewhere. Public defenders and private defense counsel are not granted the same right even though the specialization of specific kinds of cases should apply to both the prosecution and the defense. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 562 [“We conclude that, at least in the case of an incarcerated defendant, the asserted inability of the public defender to try such a defendant's case within the statutory period because of conflicting obligations to other clients does not constitute good cause to avoid dismissal of the charges.”].)

The consequence of this is that the prosecutor may continue a case beyond the statutory period designed to ensure a speedy trial to ensure they are present (meaning they are not fungible); defense counsel, on the other hand, must arrange for another, possibly less knowledgeable or experienced attorney to step in if they must appear elsewhere. Defendants are only entitled to competent counsel, not the counsel they have known or worked with for weeks or months. If a prosecutor is granted a good cause continuance simply because the victim is elderly or a dependent adult, as specified, their defense attorney would not get the same benefit if they had to appear at another trial.

1. Argument in Support: According to the California District Attorneys Association, “Currently, the law limits vertical prosecution to cases involving charges of homicide, sexual assault, and domestic violence, among others. And even though prosecutions with a vulnerable victim who is either a minor, dependent adult, or older adult are just as complex, the law does not recognize or allow for vertical prosecution.

“AB 2052 remedies this shortfall and allows one prosecutor to handle the case from arraignment to trial. Through vertical prosecution, prosecutors can hone their skills and better serve the most vulnerable in our community.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, “AB 2052 would expand the list of crimes primarily murder and domestic violence that may support a finding of good cause to continue a case overriding the defendant’s right to a speedy trial to cases where a minor is detained as a material witness, and any crime where an alleged victim is a minor, greater than sixty-five years of age, or a dependent adult as defined by Penal Code § 368, subd. (h).

“In other words, if a prosecutor was in trial on a case expected to last two months and the defendant was in jail awaiting trial on a misdemeanor petty theft of a cell phone from a minor, the defendant’s trial would be postponed two months until the prosecutor finished the first case. Additionally, AB 2052 would lead to unnecessarily prolonged incarceration for minors who are detained as material witnesses, and will cause more jail overcrowding, more expense to taxpayers, more court congestion, and more individuals being detained pretrial.”

1. Related Legislation: AB 1656 (Davies) would expand the list of crimes that may support a finding of good cause to continue a case to include human trafficking, as specified and specifies that a good cause continuance in a human trafficking case may only be granted once per case. AB 1656 is pending referral in the Senate.
   
2. Prior Legislation: AB 501 (Nakanishi), Chapter 382, Statutes of 1999, expanded the grounds for good cause for a continuance of a trial to include a case prosecuted pursuant to the Career Criminal Prosecution Program where the prosecuting attorney assigned to the case has a hearing in that court or another court on a different case
   

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alzheimer's Association
Alzheimer's Greater Los Angeles
Alzheimer's Orange County
Alzheimer's San Diego
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
California District Attorneys Association
California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association (CLTCOA)
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Riverside County District Attorney
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration

Oppose

ACLU California Action
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Coalition for Women's Prisoners
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Initiate Justice
Local 148 Los Angeles County Public Defender's Union
San Francisco Public Defender

Analysis Prepared by:

1. Mendoza is a case out of the San Francisco Superior Court where, despite no demonstrable good cause from the prosecutor, the trial court still continued the defendant’s DUI trial beyond the statutory period for good cause. The trial court cited and relied on Hernandez-Valenzuela v. Superior Court (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 1108 (Hernandez-Valenzuela), a decision in which a divided panel of Division Three of this court found good cause to continue felony cases past their statutory deadline due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the trial court acknowledged the statement in Hernandez-Valenzuela that it cannot “‘perpetually’” rely on the COVID-19 pandemic “‘to avoid dismissal under section 1382’” (id. at p. 1135), the court nevertheless found good cause for continued delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that, given the circumstances, the “limit of good cause” for delaying misdemeanor cases would be June 2024. The court concluded the delay was not caused by “chronic court congestion” but was instead the result of a “global pandemic, the ongoing effects of which constitute exceptional and extraordinary circumstances warranting a finding of good cause.” ↑